What Is the Correct Blood Pressure for You?
It's the first thing a doctor or nurse will do
when you enter the exam room – take your blood pressure. It's even done when
you go to the dentist now!
But what if you're told it's high? Should you be popping pills to reach that magic number of 120/80?
The mainstream's obsession with sending that number down to the basement has just hit a new low – and I mean that literally.
And that's something that could put you right in the crosshairs for heart disease, dementia, Alzheimer's... even death.
Omission accomplished
A new study by a group of international researchers is attempting to make the case that an unbelievably large number of people in the world – around 900 million -- are suffering from high blood pressure.
On top of that, they claim that half of the world's population is teetering right at the edge of the hypertension cliff and needs immediate treatment.
But this "original investigation" by a long list of Ph.D.'s around the world is about as original as a carnival shell game. To up the numbers of people suffering from hypertension, they pulled the oldest trick in pharma's book: They simply changed the rules.
For this study, anyone with a systolic (top number) reading of over 110 was considered to have elevated blood pressure! And those at 140 or higher were said to be in the red flashing danger zone.
The lead author for this hypertension hysteria made sure to tell the press that there are a "wide array of effective medical therapies" to lower blood pressure. And that part of the reason so many people have hypertension is that the population is aging and blood pressure typically goes up as you get older.
But there's so much these guys didn't bother to say about blood pressure numbers – especially for seniors – that it could fill a book.
For starters:
But what if you're told it's high? Should you be popping pills to reach that magic number of 120/80?
The mainstream's obsession with sending that number down to the basement has just hit a new low – and I mean that literally.
And that's something that could put you right in the crosshairs for heart disease, dementia, Alzheimer's... even death.
Omission accomplished
A new study by a group of international researchers is attempting to make the case that an unbelievably large number of people in the world – around 900 million -- are suffering from high blood pressure.
On top of that, they claim that half of the world's population is teetering right at the edge of the hypertension cliff and needs immediate treatment.
But this "original investigation" by a long list of Ph.D.'s around the world is about as original as a carnival shell game. To up the numbers of people suffering from hypertension, they pulled the oldest trick in pharma's book: They simply changed the rules.
For this study, anyone with a systolic (top number) reading of over 110 was considered to have elevated blood pressure! And those at 140 or higher were said to be in the red flashing danger zone.
The lead author for this hypertension hysteria made sure to tell the press that there are a "wide array of effective medical therapies" to lower blood pressure. And that part of the reason so many people have hypertension is that the population is aging and blood pressure typically goes up as you get older.
But there's so much these guys didn't bother to say about blood pressure numbers – especially for seniors – that it could fill a book.
For starters:
·
Two years ago a big study that looked at the medical records for
close to 30,000 people found that reducing blood pressure to these low numbers
can send your risk of Alzheimer's disease soaring.
·
Yale researchers found that seniors who take blood pressure meds
for only three years can up their chances of taking a fatal fall by almost 40
percent!
·
A short time ago, researchers from Johns Hopkins discovered that
if your diastolic (bottom number) goes below 60, you can be close to 50 percent
more likely to develop heart disease and over 30 percent more likely to
die from any cause.
But the biggest omission of all concerns
findings from some top doctors in the field several years ago who said that for
those 60 or over, a blood pressure reading up to 150/90 is A-OK.
And if you're under 60, a perfectly fine reading was upped to 140/90. Drugs not required.
But of course, Big Pharma has been on the prowl ever since to invalidate those findings. And now with this new research making the rounds, things are heading straight in the wrong direction. It looks like drugmakers won't be satisfied until everyone is taking meds to get their blood pressure down – whether they need to or not.
Look, even if your blood pressure comes in above those numbers at your next exam, that doesn't mean it's actually high. To be sure, monitor your blood pressure at home on a regular basis to get a clearer sense of its overall trend. It's easy enough to do, and you'll avoid that "white coat syndrome" that makes it spike in a medical environment.
And then, bring those readings to your doctor and have a talk about how you can ditch any blood pressure meds you've been taking. That may be one of the most important things you can do for your heart – and your brain.
And if you're under 60, a perfectly fine reading was upped to 140/90. Drugs not required.
But of course, Big Pharma has been on the prowl ever since to invalidate those findings. And now with this new research making the rounds, things are heading straight in the wrong direction. It looks like drugmakers won't be satisfied until everyone is taking meds to get their blood pressure down – whether they need to or not.
Look, even if your blood pressure comes in above those numbers at your next exam, that doesn't mean it's actually high. To be sure, monitor your blood pressure at home on a regular basis to get a clearer sense of its overall trend. It's easy enough to do, and you'll avoid that "white coat syndrome" that makes it spike in a medical environment.
And then, bring those readings to your doctor and have a talk about how you can ditch any blood pressure meds you've been taking. That may be one of the most important things you can do for your heart – and your brain.
New GMO Study Results
By Melissa Young at Health Science
Institute
A new study has just blown the lid off of GMO crops.
It turns out that despite what we've been told year after year by
the FDA and its cohorts in the biotech industry, these genetically-altered
foods are not the same as ones that haven't been tampered with.
It's not even close.
In fact, when you hear what this new research discovered about a
type of GMO corn, you may just go to your kitchen and trash everything that
contains even the tiniest tidbit of it.
Because calling them "Frankenfoods" appears to have much
more of a meaning than you ever would have suspected.
The smell of death
If you think terms such as "cadaverine" and
"putrescine" have a rather unpleasant ring to them, you're exactly
right. Both are names attached to foul-smelling compounds associated with
decay. Cadaverine is produced by rotting proteins and animal tissue -- which is
why it has the word "cadaver" in it.
And both of those disgusting (and, at a certain level, toxic)
substances have been found in a type of GMO corn known as NK603. Like other GMO
crops, the corn is designed to survive being sprayed with glyphosate, the
widely used weed killer contained in Monsanto's Roundup.
What Dr. Michael Antoniou at King's College London discovered, and
published in the scientific journal Nature, proves that the FDA's guarantee --
that GMO crops are the "substantial equivalent" of conventional ones
-- is the lie of the century.
Dr. Antoniou's said that his research "clearly shows"
how the "GM transformation process" produces profound differences in
the NK603 corn his team studied. And it goes way beyond just being disgusting.
The substantial increases in putrescine and (especially)
cadaverine is very
concerning, he said, since both are potentially toxic and can
enhance the effects of histamine, which may cause a rise in allergic reactions.
Those compounds have also been implicated in the formation of cancer-causing
nitrosamines.
In addition, the researchers discovered many other changes in the
corn – more evidence which makes that "substantial equivalent" claim
even more meaningless.
And that's only one GMO crop in a whole field of them.
Practically all U.S.-grown nonorganic soy, canola, sugar beets,
and cotton (where cottonseed oil comes from – something that's used in many
processed foods) are genetically modified.
Along with this new shocking and revolting finding, these
Frankenfoods are also saturated with glyphosate (a.k.a. Roundup), which has now
been classified as a "probable human carcinogen" by the World Health Organization's
expert cancer panel.
I'm sure that the FDA isn't about to reverse its policy based on
this alarming study. Heck, I'm not even sure they intend to read it!
So what this research gives us is another reason why you need to
eliminate as much GMO food from your diet as you possibly can.
The top three ways to do that include:
#1: Only use corn, soy and canola that's organic or certified to
be GMO-free.
#2: Steer clear of beet sugar, something that's almost always GMO.
To do that look for "cane sugar" or organic sugar on ingredient
lists.
#3: Look for the "Non-GMO Project Verified" label that's
now on thousands of food products.
Also, watch out for the most commonly used GMO ingredient of all,
high fructose corn syrup.
My Comment:
The case against GMO foods continues to grow
stronger with every new batch of research conducted by organizations outside of
the GMO industry. I have said all along that GMO foods would be shown to be a
health hazard after enough independent studies could be conducted.
The GMO
industry has managed to hold down the research as much as possible to avoid the
truth from coming out. But that will only work for so long before information
begins to seep out showing just how bad these foods and the high pesticide
farming methods are for the environment and humans alike. Buy organic as much
as you can to avoid eating GMO foods until they are forced to take them off the market.
Well Known Doctor Speaks Out On Flu Shots
By Health Science Institute
Every fall and winter season, we're sure to hear the media yammer
on about the same two things. One, it's a deadly flu season, "the
worst" ever. And two, it's not too late to get that flu shot.
In fact, right up to the last gasp of "flu season,"
they'll keep telling you to get it -- no matter how long that supposed season
may last.
San Diego residents, for example, are being told it will stretch
into June!
Of course, figuring out the actual number of true flu cases is
next to impossible, since most people never even get tested to see if they
genuinely have the flu -- but that won't stop the hysteria one bit.
The influenza vaccine is the Golden Calf of mainstream medicine. Dare
to tarnish it, and you're in big trouble.
And that's exactly what happened to one well known doctor in Ohio.
It's quite clear -- no matter who you are or what your status is,
never, ever
question the flu shot if you're not ready to face the
repercussions.
But, of course, if there ever was a vaccine that needed to be
challenged, it's the one for the flu.
Truth and consequences
Dr. Daniel Neides isn't just your average family physician. He
happens to be the Medical Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Cleveland
Clinic Wellness Institute. The attack on this accomplished health expert is so
big, even his use of the word "toxins" has been condemned.
He's been accused of "fear mongering." His colleagues
have called for him to be disciplined immediately for spreading such
"dangerous information." So what exactly is this public threat that
Dr. Neides supposedly poses?
He started off his column, which appeared in the Cleveland Plain
Dealer, by saying that he's had it with "all the nonsense" Americans
are being fed while "big business -- and the government -- continue to
ignore" the health of citizens.
As if that weren't bad enough, Dr. Neides then went so far as to
support his opinion with some honest-to-goodness, verifiable facts.
Dr. Neides also revealed how some flu vaccines contain a risky
dose of mercury and that the "preservative-free" versions contain
formaldehyde, which all add up to a "constant toxic burden."
In a nutshell, he told the truth.
Despite the fact that he went on to say that he believes vaccines
"can be helpful when used properly," he was forced to publicly
apologize. The Cleveland Clinic vowed to punish him for doing exactly what a
doctor is
supposed to do -- give his best advice and expert opinion.
Well, I'm not afraid of sharing the truth with you, and I'm pretty
sure I won't get punished for it by my publisher. So, let me add a few extra
factoids that Dr. Neides didn't get the chance to say about the flu and the
vaccines for it that are supposed to keep us all safe and sound:
• When you hear news reports about the thousands who die from the
flu every year (especially seniors), they're nothing more than wild guesses.
Even the CDC admits that it "does not know" how many deaths are due
to influenza -- or even how many cases there are.
• There are more settlements out of the federal "vaccine
court" for flu shots than any other vaccine. And the top injury is a
devastating side effect called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), in which your
immune system attacks your nerves, paralyzing your entire body.
• The Fluzone High-Dose shot that seniors are being frightened
into getting has reported side effects that include life-threatening allergic
reactions, enlarged lymph nodes, GBS, and convulsions.
And if you still think that risking those side effects is a gamble
you have to take to steer clear of the flu, there's something else you should
hear. Some very big studies done over a 40-year time span found that these
shots only give "moderate protection" -- and that's only when the
vaccine is especially effective.
This year's vaccine, (and for the last 3 years in a row) however,
isn't even very useful at protecting against the main virus that's circulating,
called H3N2.
The best defense against the flu and other winter illnesses is to
keep your immune system in fighting shape. That means loading up on probiotics,
Vitamins D and zinc, along with foods such as coconut oil (which is high in
lauric acid that is both anti-bacterial and anti-viral), raw honey (a treat
that's loaded with some amazing antioxidants), and even the spice cinnamon
(which is a powerful anti-inflammatory).
And the next time you see one of those dire flu headlines,
remember another "dangerous" thing that Dr. Neides said: "Blind
faith must become a thing of the past."
Mammograms Aren't What
They're Made Out To Be.
Despite what you may have heard, mammograms aren't really the lifesavers they're made out to be. If that sounds like crazy talk to you, I bet you'll never guess who said it!
None other than Dr. Otis Brawley, who just happens to be the medical officer of the extremely mainstream American Cancer Society.
Not only that, but Dr. Brawley also said, "We are curing people that don't need curing." Those comments were made in response to the latest study on routine mammography.
And what it's telling us is that more women are being harmed by these tests than are being saved.
I'm sure you know someone who firmly believes that a mammogram has saved her life. But it's much more likely it turned her life upside down, scared her half to death and caused her to go through more tests, possibly surgery and risky "curative" treatments for no good reason at all.
Chances are, she was given a breast cancer diagnosis for a small, slow-growing tumor that never would have caused any problems. Or, perhaps she was told she had that (non)cancer called "ductal carcinoma in situ" (DCIS).
Either way, as this new research has found (once again), mammograms are causing many healthy women to experience a life-changing -- not a life-saving -- event.
As Dr. Karsten Jorgensen, the lead author of this new study, pointed out, a breast cancer diagnosis leads straight to "overtreatment with surgery, radiotherapy and sometimes chemotherapy." All of which are treatments that can have "lethal consequences."
I know, all this talk flies in the face of everything we've heard about attacking every single tumor before it has a chance to turn deadly. But that whole idea is fast heading to the medical dust bin, along with bloodletting and drilling a hole in someone's head to cure headaches.
Dr. Jorgensen and his team examined the records on 95,000 women in Denmark for three decades who were diagnosed with breast cancer. And he found that despite all those years of screening, it didn't "reduce the incidence of advanced tumors" -- which is the whole point of all that testing.
In fact, up to a third of those women were either misdiagnosed or had slow-growing tumors that didn't require treatment. And as Dr. Brawley noted, often those pea-sized lesions that are found during a mammogram will "regress over time."
This big study, however, isn't the first time we've heard experts tell us similar things about mammography. Another done last year and published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 80 percent of women given a breast cancer diagnosis due to a mammogram wouldn't have died even if their tumor went undetected.
And three years ago a study out of Canada of 90,000 women also found that routine mammograms do not reduce the number of women who die from breast cancer. Plus that, this research concluded that one in five cancers detected this way don't even need further treatment.
Then there's also the very big issue of false alarms.
Mammograms are well-known to be extremely unreliable, causing many women to suffer through even more tests and treatments when they don't have cancer in the first place.
Despite what Dr. Brawley said, I fully expect the researchers who worked on this study to be professionally tarred and feathered. That's the usual course of action when long-held beliefs are challenged.
But whatever you may hear in the news about this research, don't forget that one of the most important things you can do is a breast self-exam. You can learn how to do it correctly from a nurse or doctor, and do it every month.
Despite what you may have heard, mammograms aren't really the lifesavers they're made out to be. If that sounds like crazy talk to you, I bet you'll never guess who said it!
None other than Dr. Otis Brawley, who just happens to be the medical officer of the extremely mainstream American Cancer Society.
Not only that, but Dr. Brawley also said, "We are curing people that don't need curing." Those comments were made in response to the latest study on routine mammography.
And what it's telling us is that more women are being harmed by these tests than are being saved.
I'm sure you know someone who firmly believes that a mammogram has saved her life. But it's much more likely it turned her life upside down, scared her half to death and caused her to go through more tests, possibly surgery and risky "curative" treatments for no good reason at all.
Chances are, she was given a breast cancer diagnosis for a small, slow-growing tumor that never would have caused any problems. Or, perhaps she was told she had that (non)cancer called "ductal carcinoma in situ" (DCIS).
Either way, as this new research has found (once again), mammograms are causing many healthy women to experience a life-changing -- not a life-saving -- event.
As Dr. Karsten Jorgensen, the lead author of this new study, pointed out, a breast cancer diagnosis leads straight to "overtreatment with surgery, radiotherapy and sometimes chemotherapy." All of which are treatments that can have "lethal consequences."
I know, all this talk flies in the face of everything we've heard about attacking every single tumor before it has a chance to turn deadly. But that whole idea is fast heading to the medical dust bin, along with bloodletting and drilling a hole in someone's head to cure headaches.
Dr. Jorgensen and his team examined the records on 95,000 women in Denmark for three decades who were diagnosed with breast cancer. And he found that despite all those years of screening, it didn't "reduce the incidence of advanced tumors" -- which is the whole point of all that testing.
In fact, up to a third of those women were either misdiagnosed or had slow-growing tumors that didn't require treatment. And as Dr. Brawley noted, often those pea-sized lesions that are found during a mammogram will "regress over time."
This big study, however, isn't the first time we've heard experts tell us similar things about mammography. Another done last year and published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 80 percent of women given a breast cancer diagnosis due to a mammogram wouldn't have died even if their tumor went undetected.
And three years ago a study out of Canada of 90,000 women also found that routine mammograms do not reduce the number of women who die from breast cancer. Plus that, this research concluded that one in five cancers detected this way don't even need further treatment.
Then there's also the very big issue of false alarms.
Mammograms are well-known to be extremely unreliable, causing many women to suffer through even more tests and treatments when they don't have cancer in the first place.
Despite what Dr. Brawley said, I fully expect the researchers who worked on this study to be professionally tarred and feathered. That's the usual course of action when long-held beliefs are challenged.
But whatever you may hear in the news about this research, don't forget that one of the most important things you can do is a breast self-exam. You can learn how to do it correctly from a nurse or doctor, and do it every month.
My Comment:
There's a much better breast cancer
screening technique available right now. It's called Automated Breast
Ultrasound System (ABUS). And eventually it will bury mammography. ABUS doesn't
just spot dense breast tumors. With a new technique called elastography,
ultrasound technicians can identify which tumors are actually malignant. That
reduces the rates of false positives and biopsies.
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
JD Roma
The
information on this blog is provided for educational purposes only. It is not a
substitute for professional medical care, and medical advice and services are
not being offered. If you have, or suspect you have, a health problem you
should consult your physician (preferably a Naturopath).
No comments:
Post a Comment